2025 INSC 99

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 10349 OF 2022

RUHI AGRAWAL & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

NIMISH S. AGRAWAL …RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER
VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. This petition arises from an order of the Chhattisgarh

High Court, dated, 11.05.2022, granting certain,
specified visitation rights to the respondent – father in
his appeal against dismissal of his petition seeking
custody of the child before the Family Court, Durg.

2. Petitioner no.1 and respondent were married on

16.01.2007 and out of this wedlock, petitioner no. 2 –
daughter was born on 12.01.2012. The primary subject
of contention is the custody and welfare of their minor
Signature Not Verified child, aged about thirteen years. During the separation
Digitally signed by

between the parties since 2016, the child has resided

SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.01.23
11:11:58 IST
Reason:

1
 with the petitioner no. 1, who has been the primary
caregiver and custodian. The petitioner no. 1 claims to
have provided a stable, nurturing environment
conducive to the child’s emotional, educational, and
overall well-being. On the other hand, the respondent
has consistently maintained that he has the intention
and willingness to actively contributed to the child’s
upbringing and seeks a greater role in shaping the
child’s life.

3. The Family Court granted sole custody of the child to

petitioner no. 1 and the respondent was awarded limited
visitation rights—restricted to one and a half hours on
the first Sunday of every month and certain holidays.

4. Aggrieved by the limited visitation rights, the respondent

appealed to the High Court, seeking joint custody or an
extended visitation schedule. The High Court, after a
comprehensive review of the evidence, agreed to retain
sole custody with petitioner no. 1 but expanded the
respondent’s visitation rights. It allowed longer meeting
hours, physical meetings on a fortnight basis, shared
vacation time, and regular video calls to promote a
meaningful bond between the father and the child.
5. To implement this balance, the High Court set forth the
following revised visitation arrangement:

2
i. The father or grandparents would be able to
engage with the child on a suitable video
conferencing platform for one hour every
Saturday and Sunday and 5- 10 minutes on
other days.

ii. Both the father and the mother in order to

facilitate the video conferencing in between shall
procure smart phones which would facilitate the
inter-se video calling.

iii. Since both the parties are living in the

same district, it is directed that on a fortnight
basis on the working Saturday the child would be
produced before the Family Court, Durg at about
10:30 AM to 11:00 A.M. by the wife. Wherefrom
the child may be taken by the husband for the
entire day and shall be returned in between 4:30
PM to 5:00 pm before the family Court to enable
the mother to get back the custody.

iv. During the long holiday/vacation

covering more than two weeks, the child would be
allowed to be in the company of the
father/grandparents for a period of 7 days and in
doing so in order to facilitate the same, the
curriculum of the School/holidays shall be
placed before the Family Court, Durg so that the
custody of the child can be decided to be given at
prior point of time for a limited period to the
father. The period would be fixed by the Family
Court after hearing both father and mother.

v. During the festivals - Dussehra, Diwali and

Holi, the father may join the company of the child
at an independent venue for a limited period of
time, 1 to 2 hours for a day and the child would
be brought by the person of confidence of mother.
The husband would intimate place or venue

3
 through the intervention of the family Court well
before time.

6. Petitioner no. 1 has challenged this modified

arrangement before this Court, citing concerns about
the child’s safety and emotional stability.
7. This Court in its order dated 02.06.2022, while issuing
notice, had directed as follows:
“Insofar as unnumbered clauses 1 to 3 and 5 are
concerned, we are not inclined to interfere with
the same at this stage.
So far as unnumbered clause 4 is concerned, for
the time being, it is kept in abeyance and
modified that during the vacation, the child
would be entitled to be in the company of
father/grand parents, initially for a period of one
day from 9.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m.
Needless to say that insofar as the rest of the
directions are concerned, the petitioner No. 1
shall strictly comply with the same.”

8. The petition has been preferred on the grounds that the

extended visitation schedule disrupts the child’s routine
and could negatively impact her academic performance
and extracurricular activities. The petitioner also
highlights the respondent's alleged history of abusive
behavior, criminal charges, and past incidents of
conflict during visitation, asserting that these factors
make the expanded schedule inappropriate and unsafe
for the child.

4
9. Conversely, the respondent defends the High Court’s
ruling, asserting that the expanded visitation
arrangement is in the child’s best interest. He claims
that petitioner no. 1 has manipulated the child and
influenced her views, limiting his ability to build a
relationship. The respondent argues that the revised
schedule allows him to strengthen his bond with the
child, which is essential for her overall development.

10. While the issue before us is still open, the respondent

requested for an interim arrangement to be made in
order to enable him to exercise certain visitation rights,
meet his daughter, and redevelop the bond that has
strained over time.

11. We have heard the learned senior counsels appearing for

both the parties and have carefully considered the
submission made in light of the facts of the case and the
principle of welfare and best interest of the child, on the
question of interim visitation rights to respondent
during the pendency of this petition before us.

12. The weeklong and overnight stays cannot be allowed in

the interim, since the challenge of the petitioner no.1

5
 before this Court is mainly on those arrangements and
thus the issue remains open for hearing before us.

13. We emphasize the need for both parents to cooperate

and communicate effectively to ensure the smooth
implementation of the visitation arrangement. Mutual
respect and collaboration are essential for the child’s
well-being.

14. Since both the parties have made severe allegation

against each other to bring forth their individual
concerns for the physical safety and mental wellbeing of
the child while in the company of the opposite parent,
we will not go into the merits of these allegations as
several cases are still pending between the parties and
we are yet to hear the petition on merits. But, keeping
the safety and welfare of the child as paramount, we
believe that these submissions cannot be taken lightly.
Petitioner no.1 has urged before us that she should be
allowed to be present during the meetings to ensure the
child’s safety, whereas the respondent has contested
against such arrangement on the grounds that
petitioner no.1 tends to control petitioner no.2 and thus
does not allow the visits to go smoothly and without
interruption.

6
15. Owing to the circumstances and the allegation in the
present case, we do not deem it appropriate to allow
petitioner no.1 to be present during the visitation
meetings that will take place during the pendency of this
petition. But we understand the concerns of a mother of
a teenage daughter, especially one who has made
serious allegations against her husband. Thus, as urged
by petitioner no.1 that the safety of the child be ensured
and as suggested by the respondent, we deem it
appropriate that a Court appointed Commissioner, who
shall be a female, shall be present at all times during the
visitation meetings.

16. Such an arrangement strikes a fair balance between the

child’s need for stability, her safety and welfare, and the
respondent’s right to meaningful involvement in the
child’s life. Both parents are reminded of their duty to
prioritize the child’s welfare and work collaboratively to
create a nurturing and supportive environment for the
child.

17. After careful consideration of the submissions, we find

no reason to not allow the abovementioned visitation
rights to continue in the interim.

7
18. During the pendency of the petition before this Court,
we deem it appropriate to allow the following visitation
arrangements made by the High Court to continue:

i. The father or grandparents would be able to engage

with the child on a suitable video conferencing
platform for one hour every Saturday and Sunday
and 5- 10 minutes on other days.
ii. Both the father and the mother in order to facilitate
the video conferencing in between shall procure
smart phones which would facilitate the inter-se
video calling.
iii. Since both the parties are living in the same district,
it is directed that on a fortnight basis on the working
Saturday the child would be produced before the
Family Court, Durg at about 10:30 AM to 11:00 A.M.
by the wife. Wherefrom the child may be taken by the
husband for the entire day and shall be returned in
between 4:30 PM to 5:00 pm before the family Court
to enable the mother to get back the custody.
iv. During the vacation, the child would be entitled to be
in the company of father/grandparents, initially for a
period of one day from 9.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m.

It is directed that the visitation rights mentioned in

clause (iii) and (iv) above shall be exercised only in the
presence of a court appointed Commissioner, who

8
 shall be a female. The custody of the child shall be
taken by the respondent in the morning and returned
to the petitioner no.1 in the evening, in the presence
of the court appointed Commissioner. Further, the
Commissioner shall be present at all times during the
course of the visitation meetings, which shall take
place in a public place only.

19. Thus, we modify the interim visitation rights only to the

above extent of requiring the presence of a female court
Commissioner who shall be appointed by the Family
Court at Durg, Chhattisgarh within four weeks from the
date of this order.
20. List the petition after two months.

........................................J.
[VIKRAM NATH]

.........................................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 22, 2025.